Robot Wars Wiki talk:Arena Forums
Exception I'm guessing that Salak would be an exception here? Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 11:05, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :What makes you bring that up/think that? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 12:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC) ::I dunno, I just remembered thinking that before while I was on eariler. Given the article says there may been exeptions, I assumed you were considering making one for a current member. Salak appears to be the only person with enough merit for it. 'Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 12:31, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :::Headbanger is an exception, Salak doesn't even contribute. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 12:34, February 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::I see. Thanks for clearing it up. 'Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 13:04, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::Headbanger has the needed 100 to be in the Reserve Rumble, and he actually hasn't posted, I've been in communication with him, and posting for him. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 15:06, February 27, 2010 (UTC) Edits in files, right I hate to sound like some kind of dumbhead but how exactly does that work?--Rescuers1&2rthebest (talk) 12:04, October 28, 2012 (UTC) :Uploading an image counts as editing files. You can also add categories to images to get an edit in that space. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 12:06, October 28, 2012 (UTC) Oh right, understood!--Rescuers1&2rthebest (talk) 13:35, October 28, 2012 (UTC) Now there is no way I am ever going to be able to fulfill that part of the criteria.--Rescuers1&2rthebest (talk) 17:56, October 28, 2012 (UTC) :You don't have to get 500 mainspace edits and 500 file edits, you need 500 edits consisting of both mainspace and file edits. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 18:38, October 28, 2012 (UTC) Additional rule I'm sorry to be like this, but why did you create the new rule about opinions?--'Deadbotuliza (talk)' 07:16, April 25, 2010 (UTC) :Because I got sick of you complaining about certain results that were not in line with what you wanted. Sorry to be blunt, but its the true. TG (t ' 07:29, April 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Opinions are opinions, and I understand that we are free to have a different opinion. To stop me moaning, I've got a great idea. Is it possible for every user to do their own take on the tournaments you've done?--'Deadbotuliza (talk) 07:37, April 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Because that ruins the fun of it. I had considered that, but its not worth it. Opinions are fine yes, but complaining is not. TG (t ' 07:40, April 25, 2010 (UTC) My Opinion I apologise if I am overstepping my place in this wiki, but I feel I have to share my opinions about this. Speaking from the position of an outsider to the Arena forums, I cannot imagine that these competitions would be much fun if they aren't being well uptaken. To my knowledge, at present there are 6 active users of the arena forums, and the forums themselves appear to be moving slowly (I check the forums regularly)- Wiki Wars 2 appears to have ground to a halt totally. While I appreciate why the rules is in place, I think the edit requirement is set too high. This cap is all well and good for when the wiki was still starting up and there was much to do, and whilst I admit that the wiki is still less than perfect, the need to edit is much less that it once was. Any user that has edited 250 times is clearly not on the wiki just for the games that go with it. In conclusion, I propose an edit to the edit requirement. I propose doing it one of three ways: 1) A reduction to the existing edit count limit (100,250 etc.) 2) Regular checks that the less known users are still regularly editing 3) A combination of both (ie. 100 edits + regular checks for activity) Thank you for your time and I hope you will consider my opinion. Matt(Talk) 18:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :The reason for the stagnation has more to do with lack of interest than lack of users. Helloher Thyrus and I were the only ones with Robot Arena 2 know-how, so we were responsible for that entire workload. Eventually we all just became more interested in other RA2 projects, hence why that tournament failed. As for Redone Series 3, about 80% of our summaries came down to "x pushes y and wins on a judges' decision", not terribly interesting or fun to do. There are plenty of unfinished projects, you could write some heat pages for the Dutch Robot Wars, now that the whole series is on Youtube. I am willing to grant exceptions if I see someone doing a lot of large projects that only amount to 1 edit credit apiece. At the moment, there aren't any forum events going on, so I see no need to revise policy right away, but perhaps the cap can be lowered as the wiki improves. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 19:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :RA2 is correct, there is no immediate need for the rule to change, as there is still an enormous amount of work to be done. Only when every episode article resembles Series 1's heats' format will they be truly completed, and there are still dozens of expansions required on the Job List. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 20:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Thank you both for your swift response. Although I do not agree with you, I recognise you are the higher authority here, I thank you for your time. Matt(Talk) 20:43, October 9, 2010 (UTC) Some more additions I thought of two more things to add to the list of unacceptable reasoning. Understand that this isn't a reactionary measure, nor is it targeting anyone in particular; I've probably done both at some point and the notion just happened to occur to me now. Here are the two new rules that I'd like to add; one under the complaining section and one other the logic section (possibly replacing what we have there now.) *Users may not vote against a robot on the basis that they disagree with said robot winning a prior match. ie ''"I'm voting against X because it should have lost in Round 1." No one agrees with the majority 100% of the time, the mature thing to do is judge the unfavoured robot fairly in spite of the decision. *Users may not vote against a robot purely because it was in its weakest form. ie 'The previous version of X was better, for that reason alone it will not win." This is not a sufficient explanation as to why the robot in question would lose. There are many cases where the weakest version of one robot would beat the strongest version of another. If those sound good, I'd like to add them in. '''RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 17:14, April 20, 2012 (UTC) :I certainly agree with the first rule, at one point in time I had to alter the reasoning behind my vote for S3 in Audited Series 5 so it didn't just sound like I was voting on 13 Black's behalf. The second reason is probably right as well. Bigger Brother in Series 7 didn't match the Series 5 version, but it would still beat a lot of opponents. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 18:10, April 20, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with both new rules. Christophee (talk) 01:30, April 21, 2012 (UTC) :::I concur, but to be honest these never seem to be broken often anyway. Datovidny (talk) 09:59, April 21, 2012 (UTC) What a bummer! What about suggesting ideas for fantasy tournaments?--Rescuers1&2rthebest 14:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to suggest an idea for the Arena forums, but you wouldn't be allowed to take part until you reach the edit quota. Christophee (talk) 15:21, May 30, 2012 (UTC) Well that is kind of what I meant. I just wondered as I am barely a tenth of the way to reaching the required edit quote at the mo. What would I have to do to make a suggestion? --Rescuers1&2rthebest 11:03, May 31, 2012 (UTC) :You can suggest an idea at Forum:Discussion, but only do it if you don't mind not being able to take part yourself. If you want to take part in the tournament you suggest, you should wait until you reach the quota. Christophee (talk) 11:50, May 31, 2012 (UTC) Adding Game Pages Hello everyone, it's me again. I'd like to be able to post in the forums, but unfortunately, I'm having major trouble amassing enough posts to do so- so I was wondering, if I could do something major for the wiki, in return for being able to post? What I plan to do is create pages and provide information for the rest of the competitor robots and arenas in the RW Video Games (I've played through them all, you see ^^) whose pages do not exist yet, as well as to help update the existing pages. I've helped to do so in some ways already (Providing more in-depth info on the AoD arenas and the Jonathan Pearce quotes for the competitors in EDPC, amongst other things), and with that, hopefully I can provide as much as I know on the games. Would it be possible? Please do let me know what you think. --GoldenFox93 02:05, June 5, 2012 (UTC) :Why don't you just create all those pages and see how many edits you end up with? Bureaucrats can grant users special permission to take part in the Arena forums early, but you'll only get it if you are a regular contributor, so your best bet is to keep contributing as much as you can. Christophee (talk) 11:37, June 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Now just a minute, he does have a point; it's not as easy as it used to be to accumulate a few hundred edits in a day without resorting to cheap padding tricks. And my style when creating a page is to do the entire thing in one go, so I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I didn't at least listen to the "quality over quantity" argument. Goldenfox, how about you give us some specific numbers? That is, the pages you intend to create, and how many edits you think each one is worth. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 13:08, June 5, 2012 (UTC) :::I see RA2's point here. I've long maintained that as our wiki approaches completeness, reaching the edit quota becomes increasingly more difficult without using tactics which render the whole point of the quota useless. I also move to see GF's breakdown of the situation. Matt Talk to me 13:14, June 5, 2012 (UTC) ::::I am going to agree here. It was my template idea that helped me reach the quota, but my battle rewrites are arguably more beneficial to the Wiki (perhaps, anyway). Yet those battle rewrites wouldn't get me up to the quota, but the templates could. And really, which user would be more helpful to the community; Someone who fixed 300 typos, or someone who made 50 detailed articles? I would guess the latter. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 14:08, June 5, 2012 (UTC) :::::I did say that he could be granted special permission if he becomes a regular contributor, so it's not like I completely dismissed his request. I understand the point you guys are making about how hard it is now to reach the quota, so maybe we need to have another look at the possibility of changing the rules. Maybe we should either scrap the quota, or lower it significantly, and have bureaucrats give permission to users that they believe are deserving. I think that would be a fairer system. Christophee (talk) 15:04, June 5, 2012 (UTC) ::::::You guys really think so? Thank you- it makes me happy to know that what I'm doing will be appreciated. I'm planning to finish off the rest of the competitor robots who don't have pages yet (As in the original ones, as well as the TV robots) and arenas for Arenas of Destruction/Extreme Destruction, and if I can, maybe also sort out some pages for the GBA version of ED. I may need some help adding pictures (Considering that I only have the PS2 version of AoD), but other than that, I can sort out most things there. As for worth, I'm imagining each completed page to be worth about 50 edits- it's my eventual goal to not need special permission to go onto the forum. Would this be alright? --GoldenFox93 16:16, June 5, 2012 (UTC) Idea for a new clause I'm locked out again, but I had an idea for a new clause about the Arena Forum edit requirement. Rather than splitting hairs about the number, why not make a more formalized procedure for granting exceptions? Similar to requests for promotion, I propose we add a section to the rules called "Requests for Arena Access" where a user can suggest some large project(s) that will make up for inadequate edits. Unlike the RFP's though, we don't want to flat-out reject the poor requests, rather suggest additional/alternative projects. Here's the wording I had in mind: Exceptions: "The powers that be recognize that as the gaps of content are filled in, it becomes significantly more difficult to reach the edit quota. Therefore, any user who has not yet met the edit quota may open up a request for special arena permissions. Included in the request should be a list of projects (preferably ones they plan on doing as opposed to having already done) that the user believes are the contributive equivalent of however many more edits they need. Administrators should not reject applications, rather suggest additional/alternative projects when necessary." RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 15:40, June 5, 2012 (UTC) :That does seem a better way to do things, however, don't word it as an "exception", as it makes it seem like the inadequate way of getting there. I would also say don't relate it to the edit tally, but just if the project was valuable enough to the wiki, for it to be worth allowing Arena access. Datovidny (talk) 16:46, June 5, 2012 (UTC) Should we lower the edit quota? These days it is becoming more and more difficult to reach the 500 edit quota, and permissions are being awarded to users earlier and earlier. I think it may be a good time to lower the edit quota. My suggestion would be 250, but I'm open to other figures. Christophee (talk) 22:37, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :In addition, I'm thinking we should use the clause that RA2 came up with in the previous discussion, to encourage users to ask for specific jobs to do in order to gain Arena permission. It may not be necessary if we lower the quota though. Christophee (talk) 22:40, January 28, 2013 (UTC) ::I support that, particularly if the upcoming tournament is supposed to be an anniversary celebration. Several users on the wiki have expressed interest in gaining eligibility recently, and with the quota so difficult to achieve, it's only fair we lower the quota. 250 is fair, I think it could push to 200, but I might be alone on that. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 22:51, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::I would be in favour of having no quota, but users must complete one or more tasks as set by an admin to gain access. Matt Talk to me 07:44, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::We're having so few new users nowadays that I'm not sure the quota is needed at all, and that members should be judged on specific criteria, such as what they do regarding quantity and quality, and if they choose to take up any of the jobs we have to do. snowdog140 08:13, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::I'll consider removing the quota entirely, as long as we have a clear alternative to replace it. I don't want to do anything without hearing from RA2 at least. I think all the active bureaucrats should be involved here. Christophee (talk) 11:27, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I concur that the quota should be removed, but as you would be the ones allowing new users access to the arena, I'll leave you to decide how best to replace it as a barrier to entry. Datovidny (talk) 11:34, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I don't see why we have to remove the edit quota; if someone reaches 500 mainspace edits one way or another, then they can join the forum. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 18:11, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Well, 500 is a really tall order these days, admittedly there are a few jobs to do that could work towards it, but 500 is just too high these days, if you insist that the edit quota should remain, it should at least be reduced. Datovidny (talk) 19:15, January 29, 2013 (UTC) By all means reduce the quota or eliminate it altogether. I think it's more counterproductive these days and is more likely than not to put off newcomers. Completing certain task(s) sounds more reasonable. StalwartUK 20:33, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :Look, I count 20 video-game based pages that are either stubs or redlinked. If there are users champing at the bit to get arena eligibility, have them do those projects. Once we've exhausted those, then we'll talk about lowering the edit quota. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 21:06, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::I don't want to change anything unless all three active bureaucrats are happy, so unless RA2 changes his mind, then I think we'll be keeping things as they are for now. As he says, once we've run out of tasks for new users, then we can reconsider. Christophee (talk) 21:58, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :::As creator of the Arena Forums, I'm offended by the notion that its hard to reach 500 edits. My intention in creating Wikia Series 8 was to reward RA2, Christophee, Gutripper, CBFan/CrashBash, Llamaman201, ManUCrazy and Helloher for all of the enormous work they put in, and give a social aspect as well as contributing to edit. I visit here every day and see less and less focus on editing and more and more focus on Arena Forums. Remove the edit quota alltogether and I see this website losing its status as a comprehensive encyclopedia and becoming a fanfiction site. What happens when all us old hats move on (as Gutripper, Llama and Helloher have) and the senior users barely know how to use the website because all they've ever done is Arena Forums? :::500 edits is easy to achieve. When compared with the quality of Series 4 Heat P or Series 6 Heat L, nearly every episode article is woeful. Even tiny robot articles like Vector have been improved by hard working editors, and there are hundreds of articles like them. The wiki is fraught with spelling errors, grammatical missteps, unformatted slabs of text. Quotes can always be added. New ideas for templates to improve the look of our website are always welcome. There is not justification for giving a user with 20 mainspace edits the same privileges RA2 enjoys for 5000, Helloher enjoys for 6300, or I enjoy for 10,000. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 23:06, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::He didn't say "20", he said "250". CrashBash (talk) 23:39, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::I believe TG is referring to the hypothetical situation of a user making a few Arenas of Destruction articles, having 20 edits in total, then gaining eligibility. I see TG's case, but I'll still stand by my opinion, having more voters on the forum makes it more interesting for everybody, and I have to feel that, because it is newer users looking to gain eligibility, they must feel thrown in at the deep end, bumbling around cluelessly as to how they would gain 500 edits. Telling them heat pages could be rewritten is fair enough, but having people do 500 edits' worth of full article rewrites is a very a big expectation of anybody. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 23:48, January 29, 2013 (UTC) Can't we just leave it as is, 500 base with exceptions made for exceptional edits? As long as they don't do one contribution, join the Arena and never edit again, that's a system I can live with. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:07, January 30, 2013 (UTC) :I'm pretty much on the same page as TG. We'll have a lot more projects to do once Extreme Warriors comes out, we should be good for a while. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 14:30, January 30, 2013 (UTC) ::Okay, this is settled now. We're not making any changes to the edit quota. I will add some notes to the policy page though, outlining how users might be able to earn permission early. Christophee (talk) 14:52, January 30, 2013 (UTC) Helping Is there anything I can do because all I seem to be doing is correcting numbers or punctuation. I'm finding it really hard to reach the edit count. I don't want to ask for an exception rule, but if there is anything I can do, please tell me. Many thanks, Adster1005 (talk) 20:42, October 3, 2016 (UTC) :Give me some time and I'll whip together a few tasks for you. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:44, October 3, 2016 (UTC) ::A good thing to do is sort out some redirects. Go to a page, like S.M.I.D.S.Y., but actually head to the page SMIDSY. Slick on the blue link that it redirected from. On the yellow toolbar at the bottom of your page, click in "My Tools" and then "What Links Here". There you will find a list of all the pages with a link to SMIDSY. As you will be able to see, there is a link on the Panzer page. Go to it, click on edit and search for "SMIDSY]]". Replace the SMIDSY with S.M.I.D.S.Y. and that's an edit! There are some Forums and Userpages there, so by convention, leave them alone. Basically, find robots that can be misspelled or abbreviated, and try to see the redirects and any places where the link has been written wrongly. I made a load of edits focused solely on Hyphenated robots, such as Hypno-Disc and Iron-Awe 2.1. The redirect fixing is not too hard and counts as edits, that are also appreciated quite a bit. I'll leave the Panzer thing alone so you can do it. Jimlaad43(talk) 22:29, October 3, 2016 (UTC) *User:Voyanuitoa made up a table on Talk:List of judges' decisions in Robot Wars that I'd like to be in the mainspace. However, it needs to be updated. Can you please run through all the robots and recount all the judges' decisions and make sure all the robots have the right number of judges decisions next to them? Also keep an eye out for American robots that have more than three judges' decisions that need to be added to the table. That might just be one big edit but I'll count it for about thirty if you do it and need special early permission. *I put some information about the design of Ironside3 on the talk page, you can put that into the Design section. *Go through all the Old Facts from Robot Wars Wiki:Did you know and make sure anything interesting is also listed on the right pages as trivia. This will probably be your biggest job. Those should keep you busy until we think of anything else. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 22:26, October 3, 2016 (UTC) ::Can I say thanks to you all for giving me topics to help out with, and with this new series, it's helped me as well. However do I have to wait for a new tournament to begin to vote or start now? Adster1005 (talk) 16:16, October 13, 2016 (UTC) Consensus over what rights the host of a tournament holds As the host of the current tournament, A Fantasy Audited War 3, '''I am not actually looking for more control, and would prefer not to use most powers in the majority of scenarios. Rather, I would like to discuss and establish consensus over what powers the host of a tournament welds, in order to avoid conflicts and accusations of 'power-trips' from occurring on the arena forums. Essentially, I would like to expand the Arena Forums policy by adding a 'host' section to the page, outlining what a host is and is not allowed to do while in charge of a tournament. Although a host is not 'holier-than-thou', from what I understand, hosts generally weld the following powers: *Establishing the draw through Random.org. *Creating special events: this has occurred in all tournaments since Tag Team Terror Series 5, whereby the host can create such events within the tournament, often without needing to establish consensus first. Examples include the Audited Series 6 Reserve Rumble, which I created with no discussion from others, but thankfully with no conflict occurring as a result. *Striking votes: per additional rules on the Arena Forums policy. *Official warnings: Of course, this can only be made by hosts to users who have clearly violated the rules, such as being incivil when voting or discussing, or violating Arena Forum policies. *Bans: Before I begin, no one is anywhere close to being banned in A Fantasy Audited War 3, so do not panic. This power should only be utilised in exceptionally rare circumstances, such as when a user has violated the rules on multiple occasions, or who has committed an action worthy of an instant-ban. I think the latest case of a user being banned was in Ragnabot 2. *Establishing tournament-specific rules (subject to consensus from other users): a good example of this would be the Razer Reliability Roulette in Audited Series 2. *Selecting the judges: such as when I did in Audited Series 6. *Closing battles and opening votes for new ones (upon conditions): I think RA2 summed this up nicely in Unsung Heroes. *Transferring the status of host onto someone else: see Unsung Heroes. I believe hosts should generally NOT be allowed to do the following: *Overruling consensus: the host is not a dictator, so overruling consensus, such as putting through the robot with fewer votes (such as this battle in a Fantasy Audited War 3, where I was the only one to vote for The Big Cheese), is forbidden. *Replacing robots mid-tournament: per this discussion. *Striking votes, or issuing warnings or bans for unacceptable reasons. An example would be The Big Cheese vs Facet, where if I were to strike all of the votes for Facet, or ban users for voting for Facet, that would be a clear abuse of power. *Closing battles too early: See the Unsung Heroes example above. Nonetheless, I would like to see what other users think of what a host's rights and responsibilities should or should not be. On another note, I would like to ask the admins, such as TG and Toast on what circumstances would influence them to revoke someone's hosting rights. SpaceManiac888 (Talk) 17:07, August 29, 2018 (UTC) :Can you please move this to the talk page of the Forum Policy? It's impossible to keep track of conversation on this page.Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:22, August 29, 2018 (UTC) ::I agree with everything you've put here, and can't think of anything else that belongs on it other than a principle against rigging randomised draws. If this is reworded to move out of the first person, then I think it's ready to be implemented. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'TOAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 14:47, August 30, 2018 (UTC)